Supreme Court Redacts Ivo Rosa File, Triggering Privacy vs Defence Row, Portugal

Even before the doors of the Supreme Court reading room closed behind him, former investigating magistrate Ivo Rosa knew something was missing. Two files and several dozen pages had vanished from the criminal inquiry he had come to examine. What he later discovered—restrictions imposed by the Prosecutor-General’s Office on the grounds of confidentiality rules that shield third-party data—has opened a new debate in Lisbon about the balance between a defendant’s right of defence and the privacy protections enshrined in Portuguese law.

Restricted access sparks fresh controversy

The episode began on 4 November when the Prosecutor-General authorised Rosa to consult three closed investigations that had targeted him between 2021 and 2024. Rosa, convinced that every line of those archives might explain why he had been secretly scrutinised, travelled to the Supreme Court of Justice only to find himself reading an edition that had been heavily pruned. Two annexes were gone, entire witness statements were blanked out and the pagination no longer matched the index. According to a written order delivered by the public prosecutor attached to the Supreme Court, those omissions were deliberate and aimed at protecting “data of third persons, natural or legal, covered by a specific secrecy regime.” Rosa filed a fresh hierarchical complaint, calling the measure disproportionate and arguing that a person who was the very target of an investigation logically has a legitimate interest in its full content.

How the secrecy rules were applied

Under Portuguese procedural law, judges and prosecutors may remove passages that reveal bank-account information, tax records, or telecommunications metadata belonging to uninvolved parties. The Prosecutor-General’s Office, currently led by Lucília Gago, insisted that it simply followed those norms. Sources inside the office say the same protective filter was used in other high-profile cases, including probes into the Luanda Leaks and the E-Santos banking saga. What has angered Rosa’s supporters is the timing: the redactions were carried out only after the original refusal to grant him any access was overturned on appeal, creating the impression that the authorities were still resisting transparency. The office counters that similar redactions were made in 2023 when the Lisbon Court of Appeal granted Rosa access to five other inquiries—and that the magistrate raised no objection then.

A tangled web of investigations

Between January 2021 and March 2024, at least eight criminal inquiries surfaced around the judge best known for presiding over the Operação Marquês pre-trial phase. Most were triggered by an anonymous denunciation alleging corruption, embezzlement, and even complicity with drug traffickers. Investigators from the Central Bureau for Criminal Investigation examined Rosa’s bank statements, retrieved his mobile geolocation data, and requested supplier invoices tied to his official residence. Yet every single file was eventually archived for lack of evidence. Parallel to the criminal front, the High Council of the Judiciary opened two disciplinary proceedings accusing Rosa of interfering with colleagues’ work in cases such as EDP and Universo Espírito Santo. One was shelved in July 2023 when plenary judges rejected a proposed 120-day suspension; the other remains technically pending but inactive.

Legal and constitutional questions at stake

Constitutional scholars are split. Some argue that the principle of equality of arms obliges the state to hand over an unredacted dossier once an investigation is closed; others reply that the General Data Protection Regulation and Article 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code explicitly allow proportional limits. Veteran lawyer Magda Faria warns that secrecy taken too far could undermine public confidence in the rule of law, especially after the police admitted using telephone billing records without prior judicial authorisation. By contrast, former prosecutor Rui Cardoso insists that disclosing the personal data of uninvolved citizens would expose the state to damages and violate Europe-wide standards.

What happens next

Rosa has asked the Constitutional Court to decide whether the deletions violate Articles 20 and 268 of the Portuguese Constitution, which guarantee access to administrative records. Should the judge-turned-litigant prevail, the decision could reset how secrecy is managed once an inquiry is closed, affecting future cases ranging from financial fraud to political corruption. For now, the files remain under lock and key in a Supreme Court cabinet, their blank pages a small but potent symbol of the ongoing tug-of-war between state secrecy and judicial transparency.